Brand Portfolio Strategy and Brand Architecture

Abstract

While companies choose to brand their products and services in many different ways, there are some central tenets that help define an optimal brand portfolio and associated brand architecture. Brand portfolio strategy involves the design, deployment, and management of multiple brands as a coordinated portfolio of meaning-based assets that address the needs of diverse customers in a marketplace and maximize return while minimizing risk. It specifies the optimal portfolio of brands a company should maintain for comprehensive market coverage with minimal overlap, determines the role and scope of each brand in the portfolio, and designs a strategic, logical, and efficient brand architecture that knits the brands together into an interdependent system. Done well, it informs the allocation of investment across brands, identifies underperforming brands as candidates for pruning or revitalization, and pinpoints gaps in the portfolio that indicate growth opportunities for new brands.

Related Work

While companies choose to brand their products and services in many different ways, there are some central tenets that help define an optimal brand portfolio and associated brand architecture. Brand portfolio strategy involves the design, deployment, and management of multiple brands as a coordinated portfolio of meaning-based assets that address the needs of diverse customers in a marketplace and maximize return while minimizing risk. It specifies the optimal portfolio of brands a company should maintain for comprehensive market coverage with minimal overlap, determines the role and scope of each brand in the portfolio, and designs a strategic, logical, and efficient brand architecture that knits the brands together into an interdependent system. Done well, it informs the allocation of investment across brands, identifies underperforming brands as candidates for pruning or revitalization, and pinpoints gaps in the portfolio that indicate growth opportunities for new brands.

More from the Author

For decades, American parents were warned to avoid introducing potential allergens to their babies prior to their first birthday. But two influential clinical studies caused the medical establishment to radically reverse its position. Parents were now warned that delaying the introduction of these types of foods increased a baby's risk of food allergies. Adeo Health Science was ready, with patents filed for a baby food that made it simple for parents to introduce allergens. Now, the new company had to turn its product into a brand and map its go-to-market strategy, including creating a compelling value proposition, choosing a path to market that was either direct-to-consumer, through grocery retailers, or via the physician channel, and planning its marketing communications and sales strategy. As a new startup with constrained resources, the company knew its marketing decisions would make or break the new product.

On Friday, February 22, 2019, following an unexpected and disappointing earnings report, The Kraft Heinz Company’s stock price fell 27%, wiping out $16 billion in market value. CEO Bernardo Hees had announced that the company had taken a $15.4 billion asset write-down, that the company would be cutting its annual dividend from $2.50 to $1.60 and that it was under SEC investigation for accounting irregularities related to its procurement process. $8.3 billion of the asset write-down was related to a loss in value of the firm’s intangible assets, specifically its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands. As Kraft Heinz looked ahead to the future, it was time to recalibrate its brand management strategies. With $50 billion in brand assets remaining on its balance sheet, effectively managing its brands going forward was critical to avoiding another brand asset write-down and to regaining the $8 billion brand value the company had just lost. Was Kraft Heinz's brand asset write-down the beginning of the end of the market dominance of "Big Food" brands across the board or was it idiosyncratic and a result of the firm's brand management resources, capabilities, and strategies?

Nike's selection of politically polarizing Colin Kaepernick as the spokesperson for the thirtieth anniversary of its iconic "Just Do It" campaign catapulted the brand into the media spotlight and made it a political flashpoint for consumers across America. Would the choice of Kaepernick positively or negatively affect Nike's business results or just generate a lot of social media chatter? As Nike's management team watched some people burn their sneakers in protest on YouTube and others applaud the company's behavior on Facebook, they wondered whether inserting Nike into the middle of a heated political debate was the right thing to do or the most reckless action Nike's brand stewards had ever taken, putting Nike's $30 billion brand asset at risk? After all, on social media, it was easy to say that one would boycott or buycott a brand due to one's political beliefs, but in the marketplace, other purchase criteria often reigned supreme.